Predictions: Presidential Names

Back when I was in Iowa, I went out to dinner with my sister, her husband, and their son. For whatever reason, we got into a conversation about how people sometimes name their kids with presidential last names. 

There are a number of presidential names that work quite well. For example, I know someone who has two girls who are named Madison and McKinley, which are great names. 

Per our conversation that night and conversations I've had with my family after that night, I'm predicting what I think will be some of the more popular presidential names for kids in the future, names that have little shot, and names that have no shot. 

But first I'm providing a rundown of presidential names that are in use right now:

• Madison
• Kennedy
• Taylor
• Reagan (Thankfully, this name seems to have declined in popularity.)
• McKinley
• Tyler
• Pierce
• Jackson
• Wilson
• Truman
• Harrison
• Carter
• Clinton
• Grant

There's not much to comment on here. However, Carter might have increased in popularity because of the character on ER, but that show's been over for a long time. Jackson is a popular name where I live. And I don't see Grant used as much as it used to be. 

Probable Names on the Rise

I'll explain these one-by-one. 

Hayes

It's an easy to say, one-syllable name. Hayes wasn't a distinguished president, but that hasn't stopped people from using Carter, Grant, Tyler, and Pierce. 

Jefferson 

Like people using Jackson and then calling the kid Jack, this name has potential because the kid's shortened name could be Jeff. In addition, TJ is one of the most beloved presidents of all time. As a three-syllable name, it doesn't take that long to say it. 

Monroe

Like Madison, Monroe has a strong sound to it, almost stately. 

Harding

He was a pretty bad president, but Harding is a distinguished-sounding name. The only problem I see with this one that no one with the last name of Johnson will call their son Harding because kids could shorter the first name to "Hard."

Buchanan

Yet another week president, but it's rich sounding, and I could see a couple sitting in a McManson in some suburb considering this name for their son. 

Lincoln

I'm surprised Lincoln has never caught on that much. He's easily one of the top-five presidents of all time, and it's an easy-to-pronounce, two-syllable word.

Taft 

Like Buchanan, this one has McMansion potential. In addition, over the supper I referenced at the start of this post, my nephew related he knew someone in college named Taft, a guy from a tony suburb of Chicago. The only detriment I see is that the dude was the fattest president ever. Then again, he was the only president to also become Supreme Court Justice, so that's kind of cool. 

Names with Little Shot

These names have some similarities to the ones above, but for various reasons I don't think they have potential

• Ford ~ It's strong sounding but old fashioned.
• Washington ~ It takes too long to say.
• Cleveland ~ Fans of Seth McFarlane might like this, but I don't see people naming their kid after a rust-belt city.
• Roosevelt ~ Same deal as Washington
• Arthur ~ It's very old fashioned.
• Johnson ~ Can you imagine the penis jokes? 

Names with No Shot

I'll explain these one-by-one. 

Adams

The high probability of annoyance will deter parents from this one. Just imagine the number of times someone would have to correct people on his name during his life: "It's Adams, not Adam."

Van Buren 

A two-word name? I don't think so.

Polk 

It sounds too much like "Pork." 

Fillmore

The name sounds affluent, but since it's a compound word of basic terms, there's too much potential for crude remarks.  

Coolidge 

The shortened version of "Cool" is humorous, but it's a weak-sounding name. 

Hoover

This reminds me of a joke: If you name your kid Trixie or Jeeves, you might be pushing them toward certain professions.

Eisenhower 

Too long. 

Nixon 

A kid named after "Tricky Dick"? I doubt it. 

Bush 

Don't get me started.

Obama

It's a bit phonetically unwieldy. 

Non-Sequitir: What this whole post leads me to is a concern that Christie will be our next president. 

Post-Election Day Thoughts

Tuesday came and went, and Barack Obama is still President of the United States. I was a bit fearful about yesterday, but because I've been following the trends in the battleground states and the betting odds on the presidential election on Ladbrokes, Obama winning wasn't a surprise. Vegas is usually right. 

I read an article a couple of days ago about what to look for early in the presidential election, and the author related that what happens in Virginia will be a good indication of how the presidential election with shake out. For a long time Romney held the Commonwealth, but Obama progressively ate away at his lead and then eventually overtook him. Florida is still in the "leaning Obama" column, so we'll see that result hopefully quite soon. 

The surprises and pleasing outcomes to me were the Dems gaining or reaffirming US Senate seats, especially the triumphs of McCaskill (MO), Warren (MA), Nelson (FL), Donnelly (IN), Tester (MT), Brown (OH), Kaine (VA), and Baldwin (WI). And the race isn't called in North Dakota yet.

As I listened to NPR Morning Edition this morning, they had had some strategists on talking about how Obama didn't do as well with "white voters" as he did in 2008. That may be true in some states I guess, but I'm curious how that assertion holds up in Ohio, especially with blue collar workers connected to the auto industry. I'm sure Romney regrets writing "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." 

But I find the depiction of white voters to be dumb as hell because, you know, we white people, we're all the same. 

You could say the same about the Latino vote, but there's something to said about that demographic, however, which is one of Chris Cillizza's five points this morning in "What the 2012 Election Taught Us." Like Cillizza, I don't think Latino voters flocked to Obama because he's a minority. It's the policies, stupid. 

In connection to the "The Fix" article, for a long time, Missouri has been often called a bellwether state for presidential elections. That might not be the case anymore. Of course, the big indicator states are Ohio and Florida, but we might want to add Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada to that list. 

During the night, I checked out what the talking heads were saying on various networks. FoxNews was painting Romney to be the victim of "big-money attacks ads" even though there were all kinds of Citizens United-induced money running all manner of crap ads against the President. Over on MSNBC, Maddow seemed to be a voice of reason among the left-leaning rabble assembled sans the lone GOP dude who rarely gets to talk. On both that channel and NBC News, Chuck Todd played with maps and showed why the projections for Ohio were right and how Florida might tip Obama's way because of Broward and Miami-Dade even though Santa Rosa in the pandhandle went 76% Romney. 

Since the election is over, I along with many others are already thinking about the possible candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election. The Wall Street Journal has an interactive display of possible Democratic candidates that's helpful. Although I've always liked Hillary, those choices aren't electrifying. I've love to see a Southern Democrat as the headliner on the ticket, but no one of that description comes to mind right now. Check out all those blue states in the 1996 election. Clinton won handily without Virginia and North Carolina. 

As for the GOP, considering Lindsey Graham's (SC) recent remarks, it'll be interesting what happens. There could be a bigger rift happening between the old fashioned conservatives and the tea party folks. Regardless, my usual suspects for the ticket are Jeb Bush (groan), Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio, but Yahoo has an article on the top ten contenders right now if you're interested. If you're a Democrat and you're thinking strategically, you should be scared of Bush and Christie. At least that's my take. 

Schlabach's Revision of the Pre-Season Top 25

Today ESPN writer Mark Schlabach updated his "Way-Too-Early Preseason Top 25."

Here are my initial thoughts in response to his rankings:

• LSU and USC being 1 and 2 respectively are good bets. Both are stacked with talent and have favorable schedules. 
• I wonder if this will finally be the season that Georgia goes to the BCS Championship game. Like LSU and Alabama over the past five years, Richt has recruited really well, outstanding in fact. But they never seem to capitalize on their opportunities.
• West Virginia in the Big 12, huh? They make sense as a fit for that offense-first, defense-challenged conference. I don't think they finish that high though.
• I think the Spartans win the Big 10.
• The Gators might be a top ten team at the end of the season. Their new offensive coordinator knows his stuff.

If you have thoughts on Schlabach's rankings, feel free to provide them in the comments section. 

Baseball Predictions

With Major League Baseball expanding its wild card by two with a hastily put together one-game wild card play-in game this season, I thought I'd take this opportunity to take my fantasy baseball knowledge and try to translate it to decent predictions on the upcoming season.

As is the case during most seasons, there is usually a "break out" team that surprises pundits. My predictions reflect that probable reality. Below you'll find my predictions of what teams will win the divisions and garner the wild cards.

National League
East: Atlanta Braves
Central: Cincinnati Reds
West: San Francisco Giants
Wild Card 1: Miami Marlins
Wild Card 2: Washington Nationals

American League
East: Tampa Bay Rays
Central: Detroit Tigers
West: Texas Rangers
Wild Card 1: Los Angeles Angels
Wild Card 2: Boston Red Sox

World Series: The Rays beat the Braves in six games.

What I'd really like to see is two specific small market teams--the Kansas City Royals and the Pittsburgh Pirates--do well this season and be in the hunt.

For the Pirates, they have a less difficult path because of the weakness of NL Central.

Off-Week Blues, Part Deux

Alabama has an off-week before the Tide hosts Auburn in T-Town.

But I offer some picks for some of tomorrow's games:

Mississippi State over Arkansas.

Ole Miss pulls out a squeaker down in Red Stick. Rev. Nutt's camp revival rhetoric works its magic for the Rebels. 

Vandy makes Fulmer's farewell even more bitter. 

Ohio State destroys the Wolverines.

Penn State has a convincing win over the Spartans.

The Hawkeyes take home Floyd of Rosedale. 

The Sooners beat the Red Raiders by two touchdowns.

You read it here first.

"Ten Republicans to Watch"

For many interested in politics, "The Fix" blog is a must read.

And his topic today is GOP leaders to watch, Republicans on the move upward if you will.

Click HERE for his top ten. 

From my monumentally amateur analysis, I think Cantor and Sanford will be major players in the near future.

A Week Away

By clicking HERE, you can see the most recent polls in states. Apparently it's a dead heat or simply quite close in Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, and strangely enough Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia. 

Georgia, Montana, and North Dakota--you got to be kidding me.

FiveThirtyEight also provides some optimistic projections if you're voting for Obama. For that interesting Web site, click HERE.

Or heck, click HERE for InTrade's predictions.

The Senate race I'm keeping a close eye on is the one down in Mississippi. The most recent poll shows Wicker (R) only up one point on Musgrove (D). Georgia is also quite interesting.  

Tucker Carlson wants to make me believe that Obama has the election won (click HERE for that column), but I'm still not believing it. 

"Well North of 50"

Click HERE for a link to an article on the Senate races and Reed's perspective on how people view a possible 60 person majority in the Senate.

To me, I don't think the Dems get sixty in the Senate, but I also never dreamt of the expansive butt-kicking the GOP took in the '06 election. That was a can of electoral whoop-ass.

Regardless, a 55-58 majority might do some good in that "reaching across the aisle" is necessary. Hopefully there are enough centrist Republicans left to do business with.

Powell, Missouri, and Your Thoughts

Although I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will chalk up Powell' s endorsement of Obama today as just a black guy supporting another black guy, I think his endorsement is one that has weight and clout. In particular, Powell's condemnation of the Ayers foolishness and the selection of Gov. Palin has to hurt the McCain camp. 

Ouch, babe.

Regardless, I'm intrigued by the chance of Obama winning the Show-Me State. You think he does it?

In addition, recent polls (click HERE) show the race evening in North Dakota and West Virginia. That's a surprise.

Off-Week Blues

Since Alabama doesn't play this Saturday, to satiate my college football addiction I offer picks for some select games this Saturday.

Arkansas at Auburn: Sometime the offense at the Barn has to wake up. The Tigers...wait, the Plainsmen....wait, the War Eagles of Auburn finally get it together down at the Cow College. The Barn by a touchdown. 

LSU at Florida: I'm still not buying LSU's QB. Florida wins, but it'll be close.

Tennessee at Georgia: Georgia will demolish the Viles. Phat Phil will eat more because of stress. That orange color will turn even uglier. 

South Carolina at Kentucky: The Wildcats will block the Cocks. Big Blue by a field goal.

Vanderbilt at State: If Vanderbilt starts 6-0, I can believe that a black man with a Muslim-sounding name will become President. Beware of the Bulldogs from Starkville. Mississippi State by a point.

Oklahoma State at Mizzou: The Tiggers tune up before their trip to Austin. This game might be defense-optional. But I think the Tiggers win it before they get beat by the Longhorns.

Oklahoma at Texas. Hook 'em!

Astounding

While I appreciate that the owner of Marty's "On Campus" is a Cubs' fan, I bristle at this.

With a franchise that was last in the World Series in 1945 and last won it a century ago, one would think that fans of the Cubs would know a thing or two about jinxing your team.

I don't like this. I don't like it all.

Predictions: Final SEC Standings

As promised in the previous post, I'm providing my predictions for the final SEC football standings for this season.

SEC EAST

1. Georgia, 2. Tennessee, 3. Florida, 4. South Carolina, 5. Kentucky, 6. Vandy

Most of the media has an embarrassing man-crush on both Coach Urban Crier and Tim T-Bone, but Tebow's antics are going to catch up with him sometime. It's a matter of time before he gets sidelined from a concussion or a shoulder separation. Florida needs to replace a lot of defense too, but they'll have plenty of weapons.

I think Tennessee will be a lot better than people think, but UGA should navigate the East as champion and finish with one or two losses overall. The Evil Genius in Columbia has some talent to develop on the o-line, so I see the Gamecocks a year away from being a serious contender again. They could upset some people though, so it's spoiler mode once again. 

Both Kentucky and Vandy are in serious rebuilding mode.

SEC WEST

1. Auburn, 2. LSU, 3. Alabama, 4. Ole Miss, 5. Arkansas, 6. Mississippi State

Both LSU and Auburn have similar profiles: great defenses, solid o-lines, strong running backs, and questions at the QB position. Les "The Mad Hatter" Miles' penchant for questionable but gutsy decisions will come home to roost this year, so I expect the Bayou Bengals to lose some close games even though they might have the most talent in college football. Auburn will have a stout defense, and their spread offense will work well. They also have a favorable schedule, so that helps too.

And now Alabama gets its own paragraphs, of course.

As much as I'd loved to predict that Alabama will win the West, I doubt it will happen. I think the offense will be quite good, and John Parker Wilson must improve his accuracy and decision-making to get us to contend. The offense is now using its third different offensive coordinator in three years, so there will be some growing pains. But I gather that McElwain's offensive schemes will open up a more diversified passing and running attack (short to mid-range passing, screens, etc.). I welcome that.

The huge question mark for the Crimson Tide is the defense, the side of the ball that Coach Saban prides himself on. The down linemen will be serviceable, but the linebacking corps invites serious concern. Ezekial Knight will probably not be cleared medically because of heart murmurs. Jimmy Johns recently got kicked off the team. And Prince Hall has been in Saban's doghouse since he took over in Tuscaloosa. Three incoming freshmen (Harris, Hightower, and Upshaw) will probably log serious playing time this year, with one of two maybe being starters, which is usually an indication that a team is in store for a tough year. 

Saban has cleaned out the driftwood in the program over the past year--getting rid of people who don't want to work or don't want to participate in what he calls "the process." They've been processed off the team, and that has created depth issues.

Ole Miss was smart as heck in hiring Nutt, and I look forward to watching the Rebels beat the Hogs in Fayette Nam on Oct. 25. The Rebels will have a good offense, but that defense could be worse than Alabama's.

Both Arkansas and State are in rebuilding modes with the Razorbacks significantly changing their offensive philosophy, and the Bulldogs lost a number of good players, changed defensive coordinators, and still don't have much of an offense. 

College Football Predictions

Since any fool can pontificate about college football on the Web and many do, I thought I'd join in.

The usual suspects of pre-season magazines are out, and I thought I'd chime in with my predictions for the national championship since my shots in the dark are just as worthy as others'.

Later in the week I'll provide the predicted final standings of college football's premier conference, the SEC, if you're interested.

After checking out the pre-season mags, it's clear that the fashionable picks for national champions are either UGA or USC.

If there is a program that has the easiest road to the BCS National Championship Charade in January, it would have to Southern Cal. They're stocked with talent, and there are no major roadblocks in the juggernaut's way except for its home game on Sept. 13 vs. Ohio State. 

USC is a safe bet. I get it.

I see why UGA is getting lots of pub. Knowshon Moreno is a stud. They have a solid QB. And they have consistently recruited outstanding talent for years. But they play in the SEC where programs are notorious for beating up on each other. Also, the last two national champions have been SEC squads. I don't see a three-peat. SEC schedules will take their toll on UGA, Florida, LSU, and AllBarn (all legit national title contenders).

So I'm going to make a bold prediction: Mizzou will meet USC in the title game. 

While Tony Temple is gone, there is depth at RB. The offense will be much the same, and the defense will be strong. The first game is against Illinois, which is on the rise, but I'm still not a believer in the Illini beating them this year. The crucial test will be Mizzou's visit to Austin on Oct. 18.

So you read it here first: USC vs. Mizzou in the BCS National Championship Game.

75% ain't bad

Hannah picking three out of four ain't bad at all.

The wisdom/luck of children.

By the way, Ed, if you're reading this, I asked her your question about your beloved Packers. She says they won't win the Super Bowl. No indication on whether they actually make it though.

Sorry.

Hannah the Prognosticator

Congratulations to my four year old daughter on picking the top finisher in the Iowa Caucus tonight. As I drove her and Quinn home on Wednesday, I gave the three names of the Democratic candidates. I then asked her who she thought would win first, then second, and then third.

She proceeded to pick Obama, Clinton, and then Edwards as one, two, and three. She didn't get the latter two correct, but she picked the winner.

I wonder if Diana minds if I take her to the track? Bet to win--not to place or show.

Not-So-Bold Predictions for Iowa

To start this blog off right to show my geekiness by posting on New Year's Eve (Amateur's Night), I want to share my thoughts on what will shake down on Thursday.

Being a native Iowan, I had the pleasure of returning to Waterloo to visit my parents for the holiday (I now live in the fine burg of Charleston, IL). The intensity of this caucus is something I've never seen before in the state. Since my Dad is registered Democrat and he caucused in '00, ole Virg is a sought-after man for sure. I've had him keep all the campaign literature he's received, which I've perused, and no one--unless you don't watch TV or read the newspapers--can get away from the glut of TV commercials.

Regardless, from looking at all of the campaign propaganda, I was most impressed by Edwards' literature. While one can justly criticize how credible his claims about his ability and will to go against the system, he's doing a good job of tapping into Iowans' values and beliefs. In a state that takes their caucus seriously and collectively likes to think of itself as working class, Edwards is preying upon the anxiety of the middle class by talking about economic issues. His pr documents and a number of his commercials that refer to Maytag shutting down, I would suspect, hit home with many Iowans who are fearful of what our economy has become. In addition, he's been to Iowa before, and he has a good network built in the state.

Obama is doing well, no doubt, and Clinton is robotic especially when Bill is along for the ride on campaign stops [Their stop along with Magic Johnson (?!) in a grocery store was comical.].

While I'm certainly biased because I'm supporting Obama, I see Edwards pulling off a upset on Thursday. I predict the win, place, and show going like this: Edwards, Obama, Clinton.

What complicates matters, however, is what happens to the caucus goers whose candidate doesn't garner 15%? If I recall correctly, I think the supporters of Richardson, Dodd, and Biden can defect and then caucus for someone in the running. I could be wrong about that arcane fact about the Iowa caucus, but I don't see supporters of the aforementioned latter three going with Clinton.

Then again, my dislike of Clinton nomination might be coloring that read too. As one of my friends described it, we're "ABC" Democrats: Anyone But Clinton.

What I wonder also is what happens when Richardson, Dodd, and Biden drop out? Will they throw support behind a certain candidate or let the field play out? Richardson in the debates seemed very deferential toward Clinton, but who would want to be the VP in the Clinton Administration Part Deux? He'd be more frustrated than Gore was with Bill.

On the GOP side, I see Huckabee messing up Romney's spending spree in Iowa, which only strengthens McCain, who I think will win New Hampshire. McCain is the best national candidate for the Republicans, if they want to go that route.